RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC] RAS(Part II)--MCA enalbing in XEN

["Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank.Vanderlinden@xxxxxxx [mailto:Frank.Vanderlinden@xxxxxxx] 
>Sent: 2009年2月17日 13:50
>To: Keir Fraser
>Cc: Gavin Maltby; Christoph Egger; 
>xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jiang, Yunhong; Ke, Liping
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC] RAS(Part II)--MCA enalbing in XEN
>
>I should probably clarify myself, since I may have created one wrong 
>impression: I don't object to the parts of the Intel code where the 
>hypervisor does more of the initial work (like is also done in 
>the page 
>offline code); it can be critical that this work is done quickly, and 
>the hypervisor is the only place that has both the information and the 
>means to do it.

Yes, agree.

>
>So, doing some more work there in some cases is probably the 
>best thing 
>to do, even though there is natural resistance to adding more code to 
>the hypervisor.

We all agree to keep HV less code, and we will try to reduce the LOC in next 
round patch.

>
>The main thing that I don't quite understand the benefits of 
>is the vMCE 
>code, which is why I asked if there are examples of where that 
>approach 
>would work better.

Please see my mail I just sent out, you can also refer to 
http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2008-12/msg00643.html. 

Thanks
Yunhong Jiang

>
>- Frank
>
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel